Detailed info on individuals within a unit

[Sir Tiamat]

I have attempted to determine the experience, equipment of individuals within a unit, as well as their number. I would like to share this with you for thoughts, comments and critique.

Why calculate the muster and upkeep cost of individuals within a unit?

More detailed combat systems like that of Cry Havoc look at the individual level to calculate the stats of the entire unit. Moreover, players generally like to know exactly how many troops they have under their command, their level of experience and how they are equipped; knowing that their unit of knights consists of 30 3rd level fighters with detailed equipment ads flavour to a campaign and allows players to deal with individuals in the unit.

Based on XP cost, Challenge rating and equipment cost I have come up a formula to calculate the detailed info on units. This formula led me to easily reconstruct the BRCS units for the same price in Gold bars, but with more information regarding their experience, equipment and numbers:

Archers: 100 1st level warriors, with roughly 100 gp of equipment 2 GB
Infantry: 100 1st level warriors, with roughly 100 gp of equipment 2 GB
Pikemen: 100 1st level warriors, with roughly 100 gp of equipment 2 GB
Seasoned Scout: 30 3rd Experts with roughly 500 gp of equipment 3GB
Elite inf.: 80 2nd level warriors/ 1st level fighters with roughly 250 gp of equipment 4GB
Md. Cavalry: 40 3rd warriors/ 2nd level fighters with roughly 500 gp of equipment 4GB
Knights: 30 4th level warriors/ 3rd level fighters with roughly 1000 gp of equipment 6 GB

Calculated from the following unit prices…

10 1st level NPC class with roughly 100 gp of equipment: 0.2 GB
10 2nd level NPC class/ 1st level PC class with roughly 250 gp of equipment: 0.5 GB
10 3rd level NPC class/ 2nd level PC class with roughly 500 gp of equipment: 1 GB
10 4th level NPC class/ 3rd level PC class with roughly 1000 gp of equipment: 2 GB
10 5th level NPC class/ 4th level PC class with roughly 1750 gp of equipment: 3.5 GB
10 6th level NPC class/ 5th level PC class with roughly 2250 gp of equipment: 5.5 GB
10 7th level NPC class/ 6th level PC class with roughly 4000 gp of equipment: 8 GB

[Sir Tiamat]

Behind the screens: how did I arrive at these numbers…. A long story…

-First I calculated the quarterly/seasonal/domain turn pay from the daily pay of 5 sp amounting to +/- 50 gp for a 1st level pc class.

-Then I multiplied it for higher level using a similar formula as xp cost: adding the previous level times X (See table 1)

X = 50 gp
Lvl1= X
Lvl2= lvl1+1X
Lvl3= lvl2+2X
Lvl4= lvl3+3X

NPC classes have the same challenge rating as a pc class of one level lower, thus they should have a similar cost. (See table 1)

Table 1. Rounded Quarterly/domain turn Pay of a Unit Consisting of 10 members

NPC-Class Pay in garrison
Level 1 200 gp
Level 2 500 gp
Level 3 1000 gp
Level 4 2000 gp
Level 5 3500 gp
Level 6 5500 gp

PC-Class Pay in garrison
Level 1 500 gp
Level 2 1000 gp
Level 3 2000 gp
Level 4 3500 gp
Level 5 5500 gp
Level 6 8000 gp

After reading the many reactions to my question regarding equipment upkeep and replacement, I concluded that 10% per quarter, making 40% per year was not too steep as I first thought. Consequently, I used the PHB price for equipment cost, with a seasonal/domain turn upkeep of 10%

I then calculated that for muster and yearly upkeep costs to be equal as stated in the BRCS equipment value of a member of the unit should be half the quarterly pay of a unit of 10 creatures.

X= Quarterly pay of 10 members
Y= the equipment value of a single member of the unit
X+10Y=4X+4Y  6Y=3X  Y=1/2X

Concluding
the muster cost of unit of 10 creatures should be:
10 x PHB + Quarterly Pay (table 1)
A unit’s Garrisoned Upkeep Cost per quarter/domain turn is:
PHB + Quarterly Pay
A unit’s Active Upkeep Cost per quarter/domain turn is:
2 x Garrisoned Upkeep Cost (PHB + Quarterly Pay)

-PHB is the total cost of the Equipment in the Player Handbook that the Unit holds.
-The Quarterly Pay according to the level and class of the unit is shown below on table 1.
-Additionally, when designing units with equal Muster Cost and Yearly Garrisoned Upkeep Costs, as in the Birthright-Play-Test, use a PHB equipment value of half the unit’s Quarterly Pay.

These figures led to relatively expensive units when one takes one GB to represent a gp value of 2000. A unit of infantry consisting of 100 1st level warriors with 100 gp value of equipment would be 12000 gp of Muster and yearly upkeep cost, with a GB value of 2000 it would make a staggering 6 GB… It should be about one third… 2 GB of muster and yearly upkeep cost…

Some of you pointed out that the GB is highly abstract, and I agree. I thus divided the costs for regents by three by taking a GB value of roughly 6000 gp when it comes to fielding and supporting an army with the following rationale:

The aforementioned cost is the cost that any common individual would have to pay to equip and field a unit. However, regents are not common individuals, as they represent an organization or state apparatus, which receives all kinds of support from its followers. This support is represented by the Gold Bar; regents that want to exchange this support for his personal gain, can exchange one GB for roughly 2000 gp, which can thereafter be spent to the regents liking including on military units. However, when a regent directly spends his goldbars on military units these units are gained through the various support his/ or her followers provided to the state apparatus. Brave men serve out of Honour, Loyalty and Duty, farmers and guild members provide food and craftsmen work to provide and repair equipment. Consequently, when it comes to fielding and supporting an army a regent’s Gold Bar is worth as much as roughly 6000 gp in cash.

Amounting to the following unit prices in GB

10 1st level NPC class with roughly 100 gp of equipment: 0.2 GB
10 2nd level NPC class/ 1st level PC class with roughly 250 gp of equipment: 0.5 GB
10 3rd level NPC class/ 2nd level PC class with roughly 500 gp of equipment: 1 GB
10 4th level NPC class/ 3rd level PC class with roughly 1000 gp of equipment: 2 GB
10 5th level NPC class/ 4th level PC class with roughly 1750 gp of equipment: 3.5 GB
10 6th level NPC class/ 5th level PC class with roughly 2250 gp of equipment: 5.5 GB
10 7th level NPC class/ 6th level PC class with roughly 4000 gp of equipment: 8 GB

These prices led me to easily reconstruct the BRCS units for the same price in Gold bars, but with more information regarding their experience, equipment and numbers:

Archers: 100 1st level warriors, with roughly 100 gp of equipment 2 GB
Infantry: 100 1st level warriors, with roughly 100 gp of equipment 2 GB
Pikemen: 100 1st level warriors, with roughly 100 gp of equipment 2 GB
Seasoned Scout: 30 3rd Experts/ 2nd level fighters with roughly 500 gp of equipment 3GB Elite inf.: 80 2nd level warriors/ 1st level fighters with roughly 250 gp of equipment 4GB
Md. Cavalry: 40 3rd warriors/ 2nd level fighters with roughly 500 gp of equipment 4GB
Knights: 30 4th level warriors/ 3rd level fighters with roughly 1000 gp of equipment 6 GB

[kgauck]

Do you figure a flat unit, where all are the same level? Or have you assumed sergeants and officers of higher level (and in the case of warrior units, more likely to be fighters) built in?

[Sir Tiamat]

Do you figure a flat unit, where all are the same level? Or have you assumed sergeants and officers of higher level (and in the case of warrior units, more likely to be fighters) built in?

Good point.

I took a flat unit, which is easier for calculating costs and strength… I assume that a unit has some stronger and some weaker individuals but that the standard fits the units described above. One can imagine that the commander receives a slightly higher share of pay, some better equipment, but that his influence on the power of the unit as well as on its GB costs is negligible.

If desired one could easily calculate the exact costs of leaders as well, using the rules above. But for general ease I assume a that the cost of the command structure is incorporated in the cost of the flat unit.

[ShadowMoon]

I always used separated entry for commanders, sargeants, and standard beares (since I am a Warhammer veteran, I was inspired by a Command Group). They could affect units and give additional boosts on the battlefield to their regiments (like drills, tactical moves, various moral bonuses, etc.).
Aside for their traits and specializations (special bonuses and penalties, like a Shock Trooper, Reckless, Sidhe Slayer, Academy Mentor, Legend, etc.), they present a valuable asset for a DM and a Player because they can easily be converted as a Lieutenant or Henchemen, and already present some character history and stats.
If the comander get killed in battle, his loss affects the whole regiment, if it was Legendary, it affects whole army (like it affects whole army with specified moral bonuses.). New commanders need to get to know his men, and vice versa, meaning that the regiment is not at full strenght for some time.
In a way they are dealt like mini-Lieutenants. And Assassination (Espionage) domain action is more fun, as well as warfare is more heroic.

PS: I love mercenary commanders, if they are blooded, they get regency in my campaign based on their troops, adding a new regent variant in my campaign. Again based on Warhammer merc hero from The Shadow of the Horned Rat, and The Dark Omen.

[Sir Tiamat]

I always used separated entry for commanders, sargeants, and standard beares (since I am a Warhammer veteran, I was inspired by a Command Group). They could affect units and give additional boosts on the battlefield to their regiments (like drills, tactical moves, various moral bonuses, etc.).
Aside for their traits and specializations (special bonuses and penalties, like a Shock Trooper, Reckless, Sidhe Slayer, Academy Mentor, Legend, etc.), they present a valuable asset for a DM and a Player because they can easily be converted as a Lieutenant or Henchemen, and already present some character history and stats.
If the comander get killed in battle, his loss affects the whole regiment, if it was Legendary, it affects whole army (like it affects whole army with specified moral bonuses.). New commanders need to get to know his men, and vice versa, meaning that the regiment is not at full strenght for some time.
In a way they are dealt like mini-Lieutenants. And Assassination (Espionage) domain action is more fun, as well as warfare is more heroic.

PS: I love mercenary commanders, if they are blooded, they get regency in my campaign based on their troops, adding a new regent variant in my campaign. Again based on Warhammer merc hero from The Shadow of the Horned Rat, and The Dark Omen.

I am all for special and experienced commanders especially if they make great NPCs but I think their cost should calculated separately, if they are to have a real and lasting effect on the campaign.

For 1 GB you get 3 commanders with a PC class, one of 2nd level (0,1 GB), one of 4th level (0.35 GB) and one of 5th level (0.55 GB)

[Pauper]

Greetings,

I liked Warhammer, as battle system and as roleplay. It had a unique approach, back when we played. :o

Would you mind making a file for download once you have settled the topic? Could be appreciated by the community? :rolleyes:


My regards

Andrè M. Pietroschek

[prince_dios]

Warhammer is fun, certainly. I play it myself. It even captures the way warfare used to work - casualties were light up until one side started running.

It is, however, of perhaps too small of a scale. And it doesn't support the idea of reserve units, who wouldn't be able to to move up to the battle fast enough nor join existing combats very easily. That and using a wargame doesn't allow the GM to fudge things a little bit to prevent anything too anti-climatic from happening. ;)

[Jaleela]

A problem I see with creating the numbers of a unit as detailed is twofold.

Firstly, military units tend to be of specific sizes, or have a uniform understood means of orginization. Historically, Medieval infantry units were based on counting in tens or twenties, with NCO's commanding ten or twenty men, and officers at the level of 100 men, or a thousand men (Disiniers, Vintiniers, Centenairs, and Millinairs respectively) For the sorts of weapons employed to be effective, they have to be employed by sizable numbers of men, roughly drawn up in lines or blocks.

Cavalry was organized into lances, gleves, Conrois, Banners, Escadres, ranging from 2 men, up to 25, and companies usually arranged into 100 lances (conveniently 200 men, when you count the knight and his squire or coustilier). For them to be effective, they trained to attack in a mass, with loose reins, and riding knee-to-knee. Otherwise shock cavalry isn't shock cavalry. 30 or 40 men will have little effect on a battlefield, and any unit of knights will have squires integral, as well as grooms or valets, and spare horses.

The second problem I see, and what is a problem with a lot of wargame systems with the emphasis on gaming, is it seems geared to building armies that are balanced, or equal matches for one another. One of the most important points in warfare is to essentially be unfair to your opponent, to bring overwhelming force on a critical point - not to have an evenly matched battle, based on armies created around a point system.

The costs of pay allocated to NCO's is overly large by a magnitude, I believe. If the game really is based on a silver system, you are paying out the equivalent of a years rent due from an earldom for an NPC in garisosn.

Maybe I'm just not understanding the point of the detailing of individuals within a unit.

A last problem I see is that all you account for is the teeth of a unit, without any tail to support it. A unit of archers needs bowyers and fletchers, or arblatiers and bolt makers, a unit of cavalry needs farriers, loriners, and saddlers - not to mention veterenarians. I believe these would be accounted for in the basic unit costs, as they certainly were detailed in medieval muster rolls and retinues. And to top it all off, a number of these men will have their wives or girlfireinds, and their kids tagging along to boot. Campfollowers have on occassion turned the tide of a battle, when they were mistaken for reenforcements arriving on a battlefield.

At any rate, in our campaign, game mechanics are less important than role-playing, and making things seem logical or going with the probable is more often done than going by a rigid system of tables. But thats the nice thing about roleplaying games, they can be altered to suit any number of tastes, and have as much or as little detail as the players and DM like. :)

[ShadowMoon]

I agree with You Jaleela completely, tho my regiments have Command Groups.
Command Group consist of three named NPCs (Commander, Sargeant, Standard Bearer). Only a Commander has a chance for a trait (random roll at NPC creation) with a newly trained/mustered unit. Trait might be advantageous or disvantageous. But as that unit gain experience and veterancy, so their Command Group gain levels, and potentially traits.
Basic unit modifiers gained from a Command Group are bonuses on Morale, Attack, Defense, and Organization.

PCs also could have traits, and also modify Morale, Attack, Defense, and Organization of a regiment they lead.

[Sir Tiamat]

A problem I see with creating the numbers of a unit as detailed is twofold.

Firstly, military units tend to be of specific sizes, or have a uniform understood means of orginization. Historically, Medieval infantry units were based on counting in tens or twenties, with NCO's commanding ten or twenty men, and officers at the level of 100 men, or a thousand men (Disiniers, Vintiniers, Centenairs, and Millinairs respectively) For the sorts of weapons employed to be effective, they have to be employed by sizable numbers of men, roughly drawn up in lines or blocks.

Cavalry was organized into lances, gleves, Conrois, Banners, Escadres, ranging from 2 men, up to 25, and companies usually arranged into 100 lances (conveniently 200 men, when you count the knight and his squire or coustilier). For them to be effective, they trained to attack in a mass, with loose reins, and riding knee-to-knee. Otherwise shock cavalry isn't shock cavalry. 30 or 40 men will have little effect on a battlefield, and any unit of knights will have squires integral, as well as grooms or valets, and spare horses.

Thank you for your reply, I could not agree more

I totally agree, my primary reason for doing this was to provide an option to custom build units. Numbers, experience and equipment you choose…

My system is not based on real world balance, but rather on the D&D balance and stats. 6 GB gets you 30 3rd level fighters with feats like spirited charge, clad in heavy armour, skilled like ride and intimidate, 30 heavy warhorses also able to deal massive damage and clad in studded leather barding…

In D&D 30 knights go through 100 warriors like a hot knife through butter… Whether that is historically correct is arguable, but it is part of the grand heroic theater that is D&D…

As for the squires, they are already part of the pay… a single knight, being a 3rd level fighter receives 800 gp in pay each year… This is not a lump sum of gold…

No, it rather involves a title, some squires and other privileges, a house, as well as a piece of land ploughed by some peasants that offer part of their produce to the knight.


A last problem I see is that all you account for is the teeth of a unit, without any tail to support it. A unit of archers needs bowyers and fletchers, or arblatiers and bolt makers, a unit of cavalry needs farriers, loriners, and saddlers - not to mention veterenarians. I believe these would be accounted for in the basic unit costs, as they certainly were detailed in medieval muster rolls and retinues. And to top it all off, a number of these men will have their wives or girlfireinds, and their kids tagging along to boot. Campfollowers have on occassion turned the tide of a battle, when they were mistaken for reenforcements arriving on a battlefield.

Every year a regent provides for 40% of the total equipment cost as upkeep, which is a huge sum.

Again this is not paid in gold, but this is rather the fealty to the state of the bowyers, fletchers, arblatiers, bolt makers, farriers, loriners, saddlers, and veterinarians. They provide the skilled support any army needs. Though a plate mail may well last a dozen of years, upkeep is nonetheless extremely expensive when we take the skilled support into account.

[Sir Tiamat]

Your other points also deserve a reply :)


The second problem I see, and what is a problem with a lot of wargame systems with the emphasis on gaming, is it seems geared to building armies that are balanced, or equal matches for one another. One of the most important points in warfare is to essentially be unfair to your opponent, to bring overwhelming force on a critical point - not to have an evenly matched battle, based on armies created around a point system.

Actually, states balance against power, or threat through a delicate and unstable system of alliances. And though the costs of military units should be balanced, state power should not be… The big fish in the pond with the biggest army will still win by overwhelming force.


Maybe I'm just not understanding the point of the detailing of individuals within a unit.

At any rate, in our campaign, game mechanics are less important than role-playing, and making things seem logical or going with the probable is more often done than going by a rigid system of tables. But thats the nice thing about roleplaying games, they can be altered to suit any number of tastes, and have as much or as little detail as the players and DM like. :)

I aimed to achieve two things…

First I wanted my players to be able to design their own elite units, as fitting their characters and domains… how would one create the “Protectors of the Erebannien”, my players can also take ten soldiers to accompany them on a diplomatic mission.

Second I desired to abandon the abstract war-game-like birthright combat system and have my players be present at the field of battle. This system allows me to zoom in on the surrounded count Luqian and his routing army... That when all fails and his attempts to rally fail miserably he is joined by his loyal company of knights, well the three knights that are left of it…. Now Luqian and his three companions can attempt to break through the enemy lines consisting of 100 warriors with chain shirts and Halberds…

[kgauck]

Our real enemy here is that in D&D pay increases by level, and the power of a character increases exponentially as they increase in level, so they can command a much larger wage. Historically a veteran of a few battles wasn't going to collect a significantly higher wage (though he might well have aquired some handsome pillage).

In part what we need to decide is how level effects pay, going from a medieval view (that it almost has no effect, because of medieval price theory) or is it more like D&D, which increases incomes exponentially based on a variety of D&D assumptions.

[Sir Tiamat]

Our real enemy here is that in D&D pay increases by level, and the power of a character increases exponentially as they increase in level, so they can command a much larger wage. Historically a veteran of a few battles wasn't going to collect a significantly higher wage (though he might well have aquired some handsome pillage).

In part what we need to decide is how level effects pay, going from a medieval view (that it almost has no effect, because of medieval price theory) or is it more like D&D, which increases incomes exponentially based on a variety of D&D assumptions.

Historically veterans are still vulnerable it still takes only one well placed arrow or strike to kill a veteran, and a single veteran fighting against three or four non-veteran combatants will likely not live… Therefore an increase in cost would not make sense… costs increase when demand is greater than supply… demand for veteran troops was not so high that regents would be willing to pay a substantially higher amount. Still a wise regent treats veteran troops well.

In D&D 3rd level fighter is a hero, who will not be dropped by a single arrow or blow and can easily take five 1st level warriors without breaking a sweat. Prices should therefore represent the power of higher level characters for game balance reasons. Moreover these rare individuals are in great demand… and are also worth more protective equipment.

[ShadowMoon]

Historically veterans are still vulnerable it still takes only one well placed arrow or strike to kill a veteran, and a single veteran fighting against three or four non-veteran combatants will likely not live… Therefore an increase in cost would not make sense… costs increase when demand is greater than supply… demand for veteran troops was not so high that regents would be willing to pay a substantially higher amount. Still a wise regent treats veteran troops well.

In D&D 3rd level fighter is a hero, who will not be dropped by a single arrow or blow and can easily take five 1st level warriors without breaking a sweat. Prices should therefore represent the power of higher level characters for game balance reasons. Moreover these rare individuals are in great demand… and are also worth more protective equipment.

Not if You use Wound system (as presented in Unearthed Arcana)...

Still Veterans shouldn't get payed better, but will be respected, and will prolly live longer, not for his increased durability (LOL) but for his experience on the battlefield...

[Sir Tiamat]

Not if You use Wound system (as presented in Unearthed Arcana)...

Still Veterans shouldn't get payed better, but will be respected, and will prolly live longer, not for his increased durability (LOL) but for his experience on the battlefield...

I do not think I really understand you…

I base my units on PHB and DMG classes and equipment… A veteran is simply higher level or a pc class, they are much more powerful with more feats and all. Therefore they should cost more

[ShadowMoon]

I was reffering to that higher level has more hit points, nothing more...

[ryancaveney]

Historically, Medieval infantry units were based on counting in tens or twenties, with NCO's commanding ten or twenty men, and officers at the level of 100 men, or a thousand men (Disiniers, Vintiniers, Centenairs, and Millinairs respectively)... Cavalry was organized into lances, gleves, Conrois, Banners, Escadres, ranging from 2 men, up to 25, and companies usually arranged into 100 lances (conveniently 200 men, when you count the knight and his squire or coustilier).

True, but essentially irrelevant, because, as you say,


For the sorts of weapons employed to be effective, they have to be employed by sizable numbers of men, roughly drawn up in lines or blocks... For them to be effective, they trained to attack in a mass, with loose reins, and riding knee-to-knee. Otherwise shock cavalry isn't shock cavalry. 30 or 40 men will have little effect on a battlefield

Small-scale organization doesn't matter to medieval generalship. You simply take whoever shows up (each individual landholder and some number of his personal followers, tenants, and suchlike), form them into 3 to 5 really big groups, and use them as huge, indivisible blocks. The apparent articulation of having subunits and NCOs is an illusion, because with medieval command-control, you simply can't effectively give orders to more than a tiny handful of units. As I've said before (many years ago), the 3x5 warcard map is actually a very realistic medieval battle model, if it is interpreted as meaning that whether you show up with ten companies or a thousand, you have to form them into a line of no more than five stacks, and move them around as such, because there's just no way to give individual orders to individual companies.

Of course, magic changes that, too. D&D magic, if present on a battlefield, gives communications selectivity even better than that of a modern-day, real-world army. However, as you say, because of the weapons systems used, you still can't achieve the modern line of battle, which relies on the ability of small groups to support each other at a distance by long-range weapons fire.

In BR, the 200-man unit is best thought of as simply a bookkeeping device, like the gold bar. It gives realms the size of those in Anuire armies of 6-18 units, which is a nicely manageable number from an accounting perspective, but not for battlefield command.


The second problem I see, and what is a problem with a lot of wargame systems with the emphasis on gaming, is it seems geared to building armies that are balanced, or equal matches for one another. One of the most important points in warfare is to essentially be unfair to your opponent, to bring overwhelming force on a critical point - not to have an evenly matched battle, based on armies created around a point system.

Exactly so. The importance of a point system is simply as a quick way to calculate by how much one side outmatches another. If you are a DM running a PBEM, you want a way to determine the winner of a battle and the casualties suffered by each side without having to play out a whole engagement; ideally, you'd do it all with a single die roll. For this purpose, Solmyr's "BR War Machine", based loosely on the strategic battle rules from the old D&D Companion Set, works quite well.


Ryan

[Jaleela]

I agree with You Jaleela completely, tho my regiments have Command Groups.
Command Group consist of three named NPCs (Commander, Sargeant, Standard Bearer). Only a Commander has a chance for a trait (random roll at NPC creation) with a newly trained/mustered unit. Trait might be advantageous or disvantageous. But as that unit gain experience and veterancy, so their Command Group gain levels, and potentially traits.
Basic unit modifiers gained from a Command Group are bonuses on Moral, Attack, Defense, and Organization.

PCs also could have traits, and also modify Moral, Attack, Defense, and Organization of a regiment they lead.

Oh yes, you have to have banners!. Pretty much in our campaign the (Anuirean) standing units have on average 200 soldiers, 30 NCO's (a disinier for every 10 men, file closer, whatever you want to call them), a vintinier for every 20, 2 officers called centiniers, and the captain. A banner either the regent (or sub-regents) livery banner or standard, and a trumpeter, we also usually throw in a chaplin, a cirgeon, and a clerk to round things off administratively. We assume only 200 of them will ever make it into combat best case scenario (given malingerers, the sick, and cowards), and that doesn't of course count any fletchers, bowyers, or smiths, and the units baggage carts.

It doesn't come up in quick battles, but it is useful to have the detail when role-playing a military campaign. We have actually had a few NPC's rewarded, heroic soldiers being promoted to NCO's, NCO's very rarely making it to officers, but officers occassionaly being rewarded by being elevated into the gentry, or knighted, or given a minor title for good service. :)

[Jaleela]

Our real enemy here is that in D&D pay increases by level, and the power of a character increases exponentially as they increase in level, so they can command a much larger wage. Historically a veteran of a few battles wasn't going to collect a significantly higher wage (though he might well have aquired some handsome pillage).

In part what we need to decide is how level effects pay, going from a medieval view (that it almost has no effect, because of medieval price theory) or is it more like D&D, which increases incomes exponentially based on a variety of D&D assumptions.

I agree wholeheartedly.

In our campaign, experienced soldiers and commanders are rewarded not by increases in pay, based on level, but they are rewarded by promotion, and being awarded status, and land, and titles. Thats what people were serving for in the middle ages, at least the hope of these things, and really, the game itself was geared to the same from the beginning, by having high level characters achieve titles and get strongholds and followers.

I just like the feel of this better than mere pay increases, but whatever floats players and DM's boats.:) The beauty of the game is we can use, add, or ignore rules as suits the group.

[Jaleela]

Your other points also deserve a reply :)



Actually, states balance against power, or threat through a delicate and unstable system of alliances. And though the costs of military units should be balanced, state power should not be… The big fish in the pond with the biggest army will still win by overwhelming force.



I aimed to achieve two things…

First I wanted my players to be able to design their own elite units, as fitting their characters and domains… how would one create the “Protectors of the Erebannien”, my players can also take ten soldiers to accompany them on a diplomatic mission.

Second I desired to abandon the abstract war-game-like birthright combat system and have my players be present at the field of battle. This system allows me to zoom in on the surrounded count Luqian and his routing army... That when all fails and his attempts to rally fail miserably he is joined by his loyal company of knights, well the three knights that are left of it…. Now Luqian and his three companions can attempt to break through the enemy lines consisting of 100 warriors with chain shirts and Halberds…

Oh, I agree, in the spirit of having elite units, although in our game these almost always being a part of a regents household, because such groups or individuals tend to come to a regents notice or are given such posts as rewards.

In our campaign, we pretty much chucked the card system as designed, and used the stats of the units to create stands of miniatures. regents and players get their own command stands, and we play battles out on a board, while simultaneously role playing incidents the characters are involved in.

We have generals write orders, and deliver them to the armies simultaneously, then work out the actual course of the movements by initiatives as modified by stats, and then come into contact. Any fights that don't have a player present are abstracted, but fights they are present at and can influence, we roleplay out. I tend to give verbal snapshots of the action, when a character isn't fighting, and can look around, he gets a bigger picture of what is happening, as a unit he or she is with moves into contact, the focus narrows to a mid-range, and when the melee is happening, the characters have their hands full keeping themselves alive. When unexpected events occur, it can be funny to watch players reactions as they step back to take in the big picture once more.

Nothing sucks more to me than turing a perfectly good roleplaying opportunity into nothing more than dice rolling or a card game.